King Sid the Great 87 wrote:This is nothing new. I'm pretty sure Congress was immune from rules against insider trading until recently.

Very recently..... Obama signed the law.

From what I remember they weren't really 'immune', they just had different reporting and disclosure rules regarding timing. And they didn't used to face benefit forfeiture for being done on insider trading violations.

shafnutz05 wrote:Bush Sr. is a fun dude. Shame to see his health failing

I had an interesting conversation with a friend, who is both a gun owner and a combat (Iraq) veteran, the other night. The take away from him was: the 2nd A. is a relic of history and you should have to have served in the military to gain the right to own a gun.

columbia wrote:I had an interesting conversation with a friend, who is both a gun owner and a combat (Iraq) veteran, the other night. The take away from him was: the 2nd A. is a relic of history and you should have to have served in the military to gain the right to own a gun.

A Fox poll asked voters if they would want to have a gun in the house in a situation like Boston wehre a manhunt for a murderer was being conducted nearby. More than 2/3 responded yes, including half of households that do not currently contain a gun:

I also find the age breakdown of this question interesting. For the people who answered yes, here’s the age breakdown:<35 = 72%35-54 = 72%55+ = 64%65+ = 65%

So contrary to the theme recently espoused by anti-gunners that gun ownership is the bailiwick of a shrinking population of old geezers, younger people were more likely to wish for a gun that their seniors.

tifosi77 wrote:All this would have been avoided if the saintly Founders had not chosen to include the word 'militia' and exclude the concept of 'self-defense' from the text.

We ARE the militia so it's not really a problem.

We are, indeed..... so if you're trying to make an argument that the right exists in any context outside of the militia the wording is a humongous problem. That's been modified over time and evolving jurisprudence, of course.

columbia wrote:I had an interesting conversation with a friend, who is both a gun owner and a combat (Iraq) veteran, the other night. The take away from him was: the 2nd A. is a relic of history and you should have to have served in the military to gain the right to own a gun.

I can see your collective skin crawling.

If you served in the military and have no interest in exercising those rights, do they have any value and can they be traded on the open market?

columbia wrote:I had an interesting conversation with a friend, who is both a gun owner and a combat (Iraq) veteran, the other night. The take away from him was: the 2nd A. is a relic of history and you should have to have served in the military to gain the right to own a gun.

I can see your collective skin crawling.

Thank him for his service then let him know he is completely wrong.

This is all that needs to be said. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and its probably a sensitive subject for those that have had the need to defend themselves and their friends every moment of every day for any period of time.

shafnutz05 wrote:As much as I despise the feds (obviously), for some reason I'm a sucker for pictures like this. Carter seems to still be fairly spry. I caught the tail end of Bush II's speech, it was really touching I thought.

columbia wrote:I had an interesting conversation with a friend, who is both a gun owner and a combat (Iraq) veteran, the other night. The take away from him was: the 2nd A. is a relic of history and you should have to have served in the military to gain the right to own a gun.

I can see your collective skin crawling.

mandatory 2 yrs, then you can vote and own a gun with proof of an honorable discharge.

The president addressed Planned Parenthood, and heaped plenty of praise upon them. I am extremely disappointed that the president (as a human being) didn't at least address the horrific criminal trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia. A man that murdered VIABLE infant children well after they were out of the womb.

This isn't meant to spark a pro-choice/pro-life debate. But "Doctor" Gosnell is what happens when there is a lack of oversight in abortion clinics. It's one of the most hideous, sad, and horrific things I've ever read in my entire life.

If events like school shootings make the NRA the epitome of all evil, how do ungodly criminal cases like Kermit Gosnell not make Planned Parenthood targets of extreme scorn and hatred?

columbia wrote:As far as I know, only shad, MR25 and Sarah Palin have sussed out an affiliation between Kermit Gosnell and PP.

Planned Parenthood was made aware of the allegations, and merely told the victims to report it on their own.

But to add...can you make an affiliation between James Holmes and the NRA? The Sandy Hook shooter and the NRA? Planned Parenthood, despite their other active causes, are the most ardent supporter of abortion-on-demand in the United States. When a horrific incident like this arises, and yes, it is just as bad as Sandy Hook (I would argue much worse), where is the widespread coverage?

FWIW, even liberal writers for Slate and other sources have openly admitted that there has been a media blackout on this story.

Those representing opposite sides of the abortion debate joined in their condemnation of a West Philadelphia physician who allegedly murdered a woman and seven viable babies at his clinic.

*******

Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania President and CEO Dayle Steinberg said her organization also strongly condemned Gosnell’s alleged actions.

“We would condemn any physician who does not follow the law or endangers anyone’s health,” Steinberg said. “All women should have access to high-quality care when they are vulnerable and facing difficult decisions.”

Steinberg said the news surrounding Gosnell’s arrest was not the first time he popped up on her organization’s radar. Planned Parenthood had been hearing unsubstantiated rumors about his clinic for several years, Steinberg said.

It was not until the last few years that the organization began hearing rumors of his services “not being high quality.”

“When we hear rumors like this, we encourage patients to complain to the Department of Health,” said Steinberg.

That's not quite exactly how you characterized it.

ExPatriatePen wrote:I served in what passed as a military under Carter.

'Nuff said.

Don't blast Carter for that without heaping equal condemnation on Johnson and Nixon and the whole anti-military culture their policies created thanks to Vietnam. Most of the vets I know from that era who also served prior to JC say that the military in 1979 was the natural by-product of everything from the preceding 10-12 years.

I'm not a Carter apologist, by any means. But this is one area where I do think he unfairly gets painted in unflattering colors.